Parties spar over witness in drug case against man who tried to open comedy club

Jan. 31, 2013

Written by

Background of this story

Travis Dibben had been approved for a $95,000 business incentive loan from the city of Springfield to open a downtown comedy club before he was charged Oct. 26, 2011 with selling cocaine. At the time, Nine of Clubs was the first tenant to book a storefront in downtown’s struggling College Station. Construction halted at the club immediately after Dibben was charged and city officials investigated and, as a result, overhauled the city’s loan practices. They concluded that loan officers had no way of knowing of the charge, related to an alleged drug buy in March 2010, but other criminal and civil cases in Dibben's past should have been investigated more thoroughly.

More

ADVERTISEMENT

In the back of a stretch limousine parked in a Springfield restaurant parking lot, a high-profile drug deal allegedly unfolded.

Inside the limo were two brothers, Travis and Tyler Dibben, as well as an undercover Springfield police officer, according to court documents.

Also in the luxury car was an unnamed confidential informant who set up the alleged cocaine deal knowing the buyer was an undercover officer.

What happened next inside that limousine is the subject of a Greene County trial set to begin in less than two weeks.

From previous hearings, prosecutors know the credibility of the undercover officer will likely be sharply questioned during the proceedings.

The jury might decide who sold — or didn’t sell — more than two grams of cocaine to the undercover officer based on the testimony of the yet-to-be named informant.

Prosecutors want the informant’s testimony but, in a break from the usual openness in court proceedings, they want to keep the informant’s identity secret until he or she takes the stand.

This morning, prosecutors asked a Greene County Judge to allow the witness but keep the name a secret.

McBride argued the confidential informant could be in danger if his or her identity, or aliases, were revealed before trial.

The secrecy, however, would mean Dibben’s attorney would not be able to prepare for the testimony or be able to call witnesses to refute whatever the informant might say during trial.

In short, Stuart Huffman said, it would not be fair to his client.

Huffman argued either the informant’s identity be revealed or the informant not be allowed to testify at all.

“It’s either all in or all out,” Huffman said.

Conklin said he would take the matter under advisement but he made clear that the request was unusual.

As of late Thursday afternoon, Conklin had not yet decided on the state’s motion, according to online court records.

If the judge decides the informant must be named prior to trial, it is not clear if the prosecutor will continue to seek him or her as a witness.

The informant’s testimony is particularly important to prosecutors after a November 2011 preliminary hearing. That’s when the undercover officer’s testimony differed from details captured on an audio recording of the alleged drug buy – a scenario that could have ended with the charge against Travis Dibben being dropped.

It was two weeks before the judge decided to move the case forward — a sign, Huffman said, that the prosecution’s case had serious issues.